Company Agrees to Pay Reduced OSHA Fine

Jan. 29, 2003
Occupationalhazards.com often posts articles discussing proposed OSHA penalties and fines, but what happens once the agency issues citations?

OSHA gives companies 15 days to agree to the penalties, request an informal hearing with the area OSHA director or contest the fines and citations before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Here's a follow-up to an article posted on the Web site on Jan. 15 titled, "Syracuse, NY Company Needs to 'Venture' Toward Safety."

Following negotiations with OSHA, New Venture Gear, the company featured in the article, agreed to pay nearly $87,000 in fines for exposing employees an extensive list of safety hazards, including unguarded moving machinery and electrocution hazards. OSHA originally proposed fines of $133,500.

The OSHA area director, Diane Brayden, called the settlment an "amicable resolution," adding that although the fine has been reduced, the 32 citations issued by OSHA will stand.

OSHA conducted an inspection of the company from Aug. 6 through Jan. 3, as part of its "site-specific targeting program," under which it inspects certain worksites with high rates of lost workday injuries and illnesses. The company was previously inspected in 1999 under a similar program and was issued citations with a proposed penalty of more than $100,000 at that time.

According to Brayden, 27 of the citations were classified as serious. Examples include failure to provide fall protection on aerial lifts, failure to maintain dry floors and failure to guard floor openings. Poor maintenance was also cited for ladders and stairs, fire extinguishers, exits, forklifts and slings, as well as failure to provide guarding on grinders, shafts, belts and pulleys and to maintain electrical equipment, conduit and flexible cords and guard electrical equipment.

Three alleged "repeat" violations included the company's failure to maintain overhead hoists, below the hook lifting devices and bridge rails; inadequately guarded moving parts on machinery; and inadequately guarded points of operation on machinery. Two alleged "other-than-serious" violations were issued for the company's failure to provide adequate general housekeeping and to properly maintain stairway treads.

"Their focus at the facility was on correcting conditions after they had caused an accident with an injury rather than being more proactive and looking for conditions that could cause injury if left uncorrected. That's being turned around at this point," said Brayden.

About the Author

Sandy Smith

Sandy Smith is the former content director of EHS Today, and is currently the EHSQ content & community lead at Intelex Technologies Inc. She has written about occupational safety and health and environmental issues since 1990.

Sponsored Recommendations

Ensuring a Safer Workplace through a Comprehensive Contractor Qualification Framework

March 13, 2025
Avetta is a leader in contractor management, and with over 15 years of industry experience, we can help you establish a robust contractor pre-qualification program that aligns...

EQT Private Equity to Acquire Avetta from WCAS

March 13, 2025
EQT commits to supporting Avetta in its ongoing growth and innovation journey.

Guide to OSHA Workplace Lighting Requirements

March 13, 2025
Learn OSHA workplace lighting requirements to enhance safety, productivity, and quality. Discover standards, compliance benefits, and risks of non-compliance.

What is the difference between Tier 1, 2, and 3 suppliers and why do they matter?

March 13, 2025
From raw materials to final products, each supplier tier poses risks and liabilities that can impact your organization. Avetta's supply chain management software offers peace ...

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of EHS Today, create an account today!